Similarities between Korah and Martin Luther

[Mannyfit75]

I like to note the similarities between Korah and Martin Luther.

According to Pastor Cornwall’s book Incense and Insurrection noted similiarities in both Luther and Korah.

From Surprise by the Truth by Pat Madrid.

Pastor Cornwall’s book addresses about the rebellion and division prevalent in Protestant churches in America. He uses Number 16 somtimes called the Korah’s Rebellion. To illustrate his point, In it, Korah, a Levite a member of the priestly tribe of Levi challenged the right of Moses and Aaron to lead the people of God and to minister to God in a unique way. Disturbed by what he saw as their privileged place among the people, he gathered around himself and some leaders of the community, and went to Moses and Aaron and said, “You have gone to far! For all the congregation are holy, everyone of them;…why, then, do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord!”

Korah didn’t believe that Moses and Aaron received their authority from God. He challenged their leadership by asserting the holiness of all people, and concluded that all could do what Moses and Aaron did. He took one truth and used it to lead the people to false conclusion.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

The book further states,

Isn’t this what precisely what Martin Luther did?

Pastor Cornwall used this Scripture lesson to emphasize God’s displeasure with members of Protestant Churches who rebel against those in authority. “Korah’s rebellion seemed to be against Moses and Aaron, but it was in fact against God…” Korah united the people with a rallying cry of “equality” and truth of this cry made it clear almost impossible or Moses to answer, for had not God said, “You shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’?” Korah grabbed that statement as a his text and preached it…Korah said, in effect, 'God said that we are equal and yet we are submitted to Moses and Aaron, and they’re lording it over to us."

Cornwall goes on answering those who assert (like the Reformers) that challenges to leadership are made because of vital issues that leaders are mishandling: “Generally, the small measure of principles that claimed as an issue is little more than a smokescreen to cover action. In seeking to dethrone the earthly leaders of the Church, we risk rising up, against God, and sharing Korah’s fate. Is there any issue large enough to justify splitting the Church over?”

I can go what Pastor Cornwall made in his book. The problem with Protestantism is the different interpretation of Scripture Passage, and when some elder disagree with another, he just leave the Church and create another church. There is no consistent teaching of Protestantis due to its doctrine of self-interpretation of Scripture… You literally become your own Magisterium, or a Pope…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Martin…Luther…Korah…sure puts a new spin on MLK.

That was a great point to bring up, Luther did no different that Korah and I agree issues like Sola Scriptura are “little more than a smokescreen”, I have used the term “smokescreen” for quite a while.

What edition of Surprised by Truth is this in?

 

[Angainor]

I have thought about such similarities, but I think the situations are different.
8And Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you sons of Levi: 9is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, 10and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also?
Korah was separated from the congregation in service and ministry. Korah’s mistake was not being content with this arrangement and then went after priestly authority.

Did the pope act like Moses? If the pope allowed Luther and company to be separate from the congregation in service and ministry then yes, the pope acted like Moses. Instead, the pope stood Luther up at the diet of worms and tried to force him to recant the gospel. Luther did not get a chance to walk in Korah’s shoes.

It was not Luther’s intent to overthrow priestly authority. If Luther were allowed to be separate in service and ministry to the Gospel, I don’t think there would have ever been a reformation, but we will never know, as he was never given that chance.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have thought about such similarities, but I think the situations are different.8And Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you sons of Levi: 9is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, 10and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also?
Korah was separated from the congregation in service and ministry. Korah’s mistake was not being content with this arrangement and then went after priestly authority.

Did the pope act like Moses? If the pope allowed Luther and company to be separate from the congregation in service and ministry then yes, the pope acted like Moses. Instead, the pope stood Luther up at the diet of worms and tried to force him to recant the gospel. Luther did not get a chance to walk in Korah’s shoes.

It was not Luther’s intent to overthrow priestly authority. If Luther were allowed to be separate in service and ministry to the Gospel, I don’t think there would have ever been a reformation, but we will never know, as he was never given that chance.

LOL you call it a MISTAKE? He sinned by overstepping his boundary and was not going to subject himself to his authorities.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Martin…Luther…Korah…sure puts a new spin on MLK.

That was a great point to bring up, Luther did no different that Korah and I agree issues like Sola Scriptura are “little more than a smokescreen”, I have used the term “smokescreen” for quite a while.

What edition of Surprised by Truth is this in?

Surprise by the Truth 2. The second one.

 

[justasking4]

LOL you call it a MISTAKE? He sinned by overstepping his boundary and was not going to subject himself to his authorities.

If he supposedly overstepped his boundary then what was he to do when your church, with the approval of the pope with Tetzel declared that by virtue of his certificates of pardon all the sins which the purchaser should afterward desire to commit would be forgiven him, and that “not even repentance is necessary.”—Ibid., b. 3, ch. 1.
More than this, he assured his hearers that the indulgences had power to save not only the living but the dead; that the very moment the money should clink against the bottom of his chest, the soul in whose behalf it had been paid would escape from purgatory and make its way to heaven. (See K. R. Hagenbach, History of the Reformation, vol. 1, p. 96.)"

Would you tolerate this?

 

[Contarini]

If he supposedly overstepped his boundary then what was he to do when your church, with the approval of the pope with Tetzel declared that by virtue of his certificates of pardon all the sins which the purchaser should afterward desire to commit would be forgiven him, and that “not even repentance is necessary.”—Ibid., b. 3, ch. 1.

What source are you referring to? I have something by Hagenbach but I don’t think it’s the same work. However, I am pretty sure that you are misinterpreting Hagenbach. Tetzel is alleged to have said these things, but I don’t recall ever seeing convincing documentation. I believe that these stories are at second-hand and lack authenticity. If Tetzel did say these things–and it’s possible he did–then he certainly did not say them with the approval of the Pope. (The fact that Tetzel had authority to preach indulgences does not mean that everything he said was authorized.)

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to what indulgences were (and are). They were never effective in the absence of repentance (although by the regulations of Albert of Mainz one could get indulgences for a repentant dead person without oneself being repentant). They presupposed that the person they were intended to benefit (whether living or dead) had repented of their sins and was in a state of grace.

If Tetzel said anything else, he said it completely on his own account.

Edwin

 

[justasking4]

Contarini;2546341]What source are you referring to? I have something by Hagenbach but I don’t think it’s the same work. However, I am pretty sure that you are misinterpreting Hagenbach. Tetzel is alleged to have said these things, but I don’t recall ever seeing convincing documentation. I believe that these stories are at second-hand and lack authenticity. If Tetzel did say these things–and it’s possible he did–then he certainly did not say them with the approval of the Pope.
(The fact that Tetzel had authority to preach indulgences does not mean that everything he said was authorized.)

Did he not have authority to preach from the pope? Would this not also mean the pope approved of it? If the pope did not, then do you have any evidence that he did not approve of it?

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to what indulgences were (and are). They were never effective in the absence of repentance (although by the regulations of Albert of Mainz one could get indulgences for a repentant dead person without oneself being repentant). They presupposed that the person they were intended to benefit (whether living or dead) had repented of their sins and was in a state of grace.

Here is what the catholic catechism says-
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal
punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes
either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”

What i don’t see here is how this is to be obtained. Was it wrong to use the sale of indulgences to build a church building?

If Tetzel said anything else, he said it completely on his own account.
Edwin

Do you have any documentation from the time that this was indeed the case?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If he supposedly overstepped his boundary then what was he to do when your church, with the approval of the pope with Tetzel declared that by virtue of his certificates of pardon all the sins which the purchaser should afterward desire to commit would be forgiven him, and that “not even repentance is necessary.”—Ibid., b. 3, ch. 1.
More than this, he assured his hearers that the indulgences had power to save not only the living but the dead; that the very moment the money should clink against the bottom of his chest, the soul in whose behalf it had been paid would escape from purgatory and make its way to heaven. (See K. R. Hagenbach, History of the Reformation, vol. 1, p. 96.)"

Would you tolerate this?

No offense, but ti sounds like you cut and pasted some quotes. What books are you talking about, when you see the term “Ibid” that means a previous work was listed with the full title.

 

[RevDrNorth]

As a nun Professor of mine noted, the church had sunk into corruption and the reformation in God’s providence led to counter reformation through which the church was blessed.

Martin Luther is a man and had issues but he did address corruption in the Church. I have seen people trying to act as if Tetzel was some sort of rogue Priest…puhleease. The church was having a sale…sale…sale. Unfortunately nonsense like this arose because of the churches continual development of new doctrines and so on that were not in harmony with the One Holy Cahtolic and Apostolic Church.

I find it funny that people attack ML for being schismatic when the RCC itself was born in schism when it departed from the Church established by Jesus Christ and developed new doctrines that are at variance to that of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. It is almost like the RCC dispalyed bad behavior and then gets mad at its schismatic children hen they do the same thing.

In many ways ML helped the Catholic church out by getting it to look at itself and where it was going. It was in a sad situation at the time of its own making. Maybe the Catholic Church ought to beatify Dr. Luther

Rev North

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As a nun Professor of mine noted, the church had sunk into corruption and the reformation in God’s providence led to counter reformation through which the church was blessed.

Martin Luther is a man and had issues but he did address corruption in the Church. I have seen people trying to act as if Tetzel was some sort of rogue Priest…puhleease. The church was having a sale…sale…sale. Unfortunately nonsense like this arose because of the churches continual development of new doctrines and so on that were not in harmony with the One Holy Cahtolic and Apostolic Church.

I find it funny that people attack ML for being schismatic when the RCC itself was born in schism when it departed from the Church established by Jesus Christ and developed new doctrines that are at variance to that of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. It is almost like the RCC dispalyed bad behavior and then gets mad at its schismatic children hen they do the same thing.

In many ways ML helped the Catholic church out by getting it to look at itself and where it was going. It was in a sad situation at the time of its own making. Maybe the Catholic Church ought to beatify Dr. Luther

Rev North

You have got to be kidding me. It is the Catholic Church that adheres to the Ecumenical Councils while the Protestants reject them. Even the authority of the bishops was usurped by the Lutherans when the Lutherans declared every bishop in the world had lost their authority and that authority was given to them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You have got to be kidding me. It is the Catholic Church that adheres to the Ecumenical Councils while the Protestants reject them. Even the authority of the bishops was usurped by the Lutherans when the Lutherans declared every bishop in the world had lost their authority and that authority was given to them.

Well said.